JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of judgment, as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Nurpur, in Sessions Case No. 5-N/VII/14/2013, dated 7.9.2016, whereby the accused- respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) in case FIR No. 201/2013, dated 2.7.2013, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra. 2. The case of the prosecution is that PW9 Brij Mohan, who was posted as Inspector/SHO, Police Station Nurpur in the year 2013, was coming back from Dharamshala after attending the Court, on the way was telephonically informed by MHC, Police Station, Nurpur, that murder took place at Village Kot-Palahri. On receipt of information, he directed MHC to send a police party on the spot and thereafter SI Tilak Singh and ASI Joginder Singh along with other police officials rushed to the spot vide rapat, Ext. PW9/A, where complainant, Baba Singh got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW1/A to the effect that he is a contractor by profession and studied upto 10th standard. He married Shrestha Devi in the year 1980. He is having three sons namely Deepak (the accused), Pardeep Kumar and Naveen Kumar. On 2.7.2013 he had gone to PWD office in connection with a contract and when he returned to home at about 6 pm, he inquired about the deceased from his son Pardeep Kumar, who feigned his ignorance about whereabouts of the deceased. According to the complainant, one Raj, widow of Darshan, disclosed him that Shrestha Devi had gone to Jungle to bring bushes for broom. On this complainant and his brother Mohinder Singh went towards Jungle in search of Shrestha Devi, wherein complainant noticed dead body of his wife lying in mango orchard of Sher Singh. The complainant identified the dead body of his wife from her clothes and her head was lying at the distance of about 12/15 feet. Darat, water bottle and slippers were also lying near the dead body. The complainant informed the police upon which formal FIR came to be registered at police station Nurpur. 3. The investigation was conducted by PW9 Inspector Brij Mohan SHO police station Nurpur. The I.O. went to the spot and got it photographed and video-graphed and prepared spot map. Darat, water bottle and slippers were also lying near the dead body. The complainant informed the police upon which formal FIR came to be registered at police station Nurpur. 3. The investigation was conducted by PW9 Inspector Brij Mohan SHO police station Nurpur. The I.O. went to the spot and got it photographed and video-graphed and prepared spot map. Darat, water bottle and slippers of deceased were sealed in a parcel and taken into possession vide separate memo along with blood samples. The dead body of deceased was sent to Civil Hospital Nurpur for post-mortem and thereafter post-mortem report was obtained. 4 On 3.7.2013, during investigation, it surfaced that accused accompanied his deceased mother to Jungle at about 11/11.30 a.m. with Darat, who returned home after about 45 minutes and when his younger brother Pardeep Kumar asked about the deceased, the accused got perplexed. 5. According to the prosecution, the accused was seen by PW10 Seva Devi washing his Darat, clothes and hands at 'Khuhi Nallah' Check Dam, which place was got photographed and video-graphed by the investigating agency. Soil sample was also lifted from Check Dam. Regional Forensic Science Laboratory team also inspected the spot. Two necklace of deceased, one piece of bone, teeth and one dry mango leaf stained with blood lying on the spot were also taken into possession. The complainant handed over 'Darat', alleged to have been used by the accused, to the police, which was taken into possession. The accused was arrested. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded and the memos were prepared and on completion of investigation and after receipt of RFSL reports police prepared the challan and presented in the court. 6. The accused was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein he pleaded his innocence and claimed false implication. The accused was also called upon to lead evidence in his defence, however he did not do so. 8. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein he pleaded his innocence and claimed false implication. The accused was also called upon to lead evidence in his defence, however he did not do so. 8. The learned court below, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him, as aforesaid and feeling dissatisfied the State/appellant has filed the instant appeal against acquittal of the accused. 9. It is vehemently argued by Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for appellant- State, that the findings recorded by the learned court below are totally perverse and being contrary to evidence on record are liable to be set aside and therefore the accused deserves to be convicted for the charges framed against him. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate appearing for the accused, has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, which according to him, has been rendered after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore, such findings being based on evidence on record warrant no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also scanned the records of case carefully. 12. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, first of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar , (2022) 3 SCC 471 has encapsulated legal position governing the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’ 14. Similar reiteration of law can be found in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka , (2023) 9 SCC 581 , Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 (4) Scale 513 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand , (2025) 5 SCC 433 15. Similar reiteration of law can be found in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka , (2023) 9 SCC 581 , Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 (4) Scale 513 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand , (2025) 5 SCC 433 15. Perusal of the judgments, as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, demonstrates that scope of interference in the case of acquittal is very limited and the same would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 16. Coming to the factual matrix of the case in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant, Baba Singh, husband of the deceased, as PW1, who deposed that on 2.7.2013 at about 10.30/11.00 am, he went to PWD office Latri (Khajjan) and came back to home at about 6.00 PM. He inquired from his son Pardeep Kumar about the whereabouts of the deceased and he told that his mother had gone to Jungle for collecting bushes. PW1 stated that thereafter, he along with his brother Mohinder Singh rushed towards jungle to search the deceased. They went upto some distance from his house and found dead body of his wife and her head was lying separately at a distance of about 12-15 feet. The water bottle, Darat, Chapples of his deceased wife were also lying there. Thereafter he informed the Ward Panch regarding the incident. In the mean time police and people of the village gathered on the spot. His statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., Ext. PW1/A was recorded by the police. PW1 also handed over ‘darat’ to the police, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PWI/B. 17. PW1 further stated that PW Seva Devi did not disclose to him about the incident. However, at this stage, the Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine the witness as he had resiled from his previous statement. 18. PW1 also handed over ‘darat’ to the police, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PWI/B. 17. PW1 further stated that PW Seva Devi did not disclose to him about the incident. However, at this stage, the Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine the witness as he had resiled from his previous statement. 18. In his cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, he denied that Seva Devi had told him that the accused was washing his clothes and 'Darat' at pond on 2.7.2013 at about 12.00/12.15 in the noon and the accused was perplexed. He denied that he had asked the accused regarding the offence but he could not reply satisfactorily. He also denied that the accused used to quarrel with his mother for want of money. He denied that the accused killed the deceased (his wife). PW1 after hearing portion A to A of his statement Mark-B, stated the same to be incorrect as he did not state so before the police. 19. In his cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel, he admitted that Darat like Ex. P1 is commonly available in every house of village and local market. He admitted that he did not hand over the 'Darat' to the police. He admitted that the accused was having very good relations with his mother. He also admitted that he and his brother namely Mohinder were the first persons who visited the place of occurrence. 20. PW2 Mulakh Raj deposed that on 2.7.2013 he was associated by the police in the investigation of the case. The police recovered Darat, Ext. P2 one water bottle, Ext. P3 and chapple, Ext. P4 from the spot and these articles were sealed in the parcels with seal impression 'A'. Photography and video- graphy were also conducted. He stated that the police also took into possession soil sample stained with blood and control sample vide memo Ext. PW2/B and sealed with seal impression ‘T’ on the spot. Darat Ex. P1 was also taken into possession by the police from Baba Singh vide memo Ex. PWI/B. The police also took into possession 'Mala' in two pieces and broken teeth of deceased vide memo Ex. PW2/D. 21. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he was not present at the place of alleged occurrence. He admitted that aforesaid Darat, Mala, bottle, Chapple are commonly available in the market. 22. PWI/B. The police also took into possession 'Mala' in two pieces and broken teeth of deceased vide memo Ex. PW2/D. 21. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he was not present at the place of alleged occurrence. He admitted that aforesaid Darat, Mala, bottle, Chapple are commonly available in the market. 22. PW3, Rajinder Dogra deposed that he is running a photography shop at Jassure Bazaar in the name and style Rajindera Studio. On 2.7.2013 he was called by the police to conduct the photography and videography. He visited the spot along with police on the same day where the murder was committed by the accused and he conducted the videography and photography on 3.7.2013. After preparation of CD & DVD and developing the photographs, the same were handed over to the police. He issued certificate Ex. P29 under his signatures and seal. 23. PW4, Rajesh Kumar, who was Patwari, Patwar Circle Chowki, at the relevant time, deposed that on 4.7.2013 the police moved an application Ex. PW4/A for the issuance of revenue record where the offence was committed. He visited the spot and prepared Jamabandi Ex. PW4/B and Aks Latha Ex. PW4/C and handed over the same to the police. 24. PW5 Dr. Ashutosh Joshi, deposed that on the application moved by the police, on 3.7.2013 he conducted the post-mortem of dead body of deceased Shrestha Devi and observed following injuries:- “External Appearance Female dead body lying supine no foul odour. Maggots moving at the level of neck, eyes closed. Facial pallor present. Body beheaded and head lying separate from the body. Rigor mortise present. Postmortem lividity present on the dependent parts and back. No ligature mark present. Antemoretem injuries 1. Cut laceration 4 cm X 2 cm at the right angle of mouth extending up-wards. 2. Lacerated wound 2 X 1 cm at the left angle of mouth. 3.Two right upper incisors loosened clotted blood present in the mouth. 4. Minor abrasions present at the right knee. 5. Abdomen distended with greenish dis-colouration at the left iliac fossa. 6. Skin pealed of at places on the left leg and abdomen. II. Cranium and Spinal Cord Head lying separate from the body. At the level of neck second cervical vertebra all major structures. Oesophagus, trachea, spinal cord, major vessels of the neck (carotid arteries). Muscles and fascia of the neck were horizontally cut sharply margins are ragged and lacerated. 6. Skin pealed of at places on the left leg and abdomen. II. Cranium and Spinal Cord Head lying separate from the body. At the level of neck second cervical vertebra all major structures. Oesophagus, trachea, spinal cord, major vessels of the neck (carotid arteries). Muscles and fascia of the neck were horizontally cut sharply margins are ragged and lacerated. Massive clotted present all over.” 25. According to his opinion, cause of death was due to chopped wound at the level of neck leading to hemorrhage, bleeding shock and death. However, final opinion was preserved till the report of the chemical examiner of viscera. 26. PW5 after receiving chemical examiner report opined that there was no evidence of any poison in the parcel, Ext. P1 to Ext. P4, therefore, in his opinion, cause of death remained the same. 27. In his cross-examination, he denied that injuries mentioned in PMR are not possible due to fall of a person from height on a darat. 28. PW6 Constable Varinder Kumar deposed that on 6.7.2013 MHC, Rachpal Singh police station Nurpur handed over to him two sealed parcels to be deposited at RFSL, Dharamshala vide R.C No. 195/2013 dated 6.7.2013, which he deposited at RFSL on the same day and therafter handed over its receipt to MHC Rachpal Singh. He stated that case property remained intact in his possession. 29. PW7 HC Rachpal Singh, deposed that he was working as MHC police station Nurpur at the relevant time. On 2.7.2013 a rukka Ex. PWI/A was received in the police station Nurpur, on the basis of which he registered FIR Ex. PW7/A. On 3.7.2013, I.O. deposited parcels sealed with seal impression 'J' five in number along with specimen impression of seal, containing broken teeth, bone and 'Mala', another parcel sealed with seal impression 'O' five in number containing 'Darat'; two parcels with seal impression 'O' five in numbers containing soil smeared with blood and control soil sample of the spot. He also received the parcel of clothes of deceased, which was sealed by the doctor with seal of hospital. All the above-said parcels were entered by him in Malkhana register. The above mentioned parcels were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala for chemical examination vide R.C. No. 195/13 dated 6.7.2013 through Constable Varinder Kumar. The case property remained intact in his possession. 30. All the above-said parcels were entered by him in Malkhana register. The above mentioned parcels were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala for chemical examination vide R.C. No. 195/13 dated 6.7.2013 through Constable Varinder Kumar. The case property remained intact in his possession. 30. PW8 ASI Ramesh Chand deposed that on 9.7.2013 he recorded the statements of Rakesh Kumar Patwari Patwar Circle Chowki as per his version. 31. PW9 Brij Mohan stated that he remained posted as Inspector/SHO, Police Station Nurpur in the year 2013. He deposed that when he was coming back from Dharamshala after attending the court and office of I.G., on the way, he was telephonically informed by MHC Police Station, Nurpur, that murder took place at village Kot-Palahri. He accordingly, directed the MHC to send police party on the spot and thereafter SI Tilak Singh and ASI Joginder Singh along with other police officials rushed to the spot vide rapat Ex. PW9/A. PW9 further deposed that after reaching the spot, he recorded statement of complainant Baba Singh, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW1/A. As per the statement Ex. PW1/A offence under Section 302 IPC was made out against the accused, on which statement Ex. PW/1 (Rukka) was sent to police station Nurpur through Constable Balwant Singh where FIR Ex. PW7/A came to be registered. PW9 stated that during investigation in presence of police party and local inhabitants the spot was got photographed from Rajinder Soga. He prepared the spot map Ex. PW9/C. The dead body was sent to the hospital through Constable Parmod for keeping the same in dead house and for conducting the postmortem. On the spot, a Darat, water bottle and ladies Chapples of the deceased were found. Darat, bottle of water and Chapples were packed in different parcels which were sealed with seal impression 'A'. Specimen impression of seal Ex. PW9/F was taken on separate piece of cloth and the parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/A. He also took blood stained soil and control sample from the spot and the same were packed in four different parcels for chemical analysis. PW9 stated that the forensic experts collected chain and broken bone of the deceased. During investigation it was found that the accused Deepak Kumar washed/cleaned the weapon of offence and his clothes after occurrence at place Khuhi Nallah. PW9 stated that the forensic experts collected chain and broken bone of the deceased. During investigation it was found that the accused Deepak Kumar washed/cleaned the weapon of offence and his clothes after occurrence at place Khuhi Nallah. The soil and control sample were taken from Khuhi Nallah and same were packed in different parcels. On 3.7.2013 Baba Singh produced Darat which was kept outside the wall of his house and disclosed that this Darat was taken by the accused on 2.7.2013. He moved an application for obtaining Aks Tatima and Jamabandi of the spot. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their respective version. 32. In his cross-examination, he admitted that prior to this incident, accused had no altercation with his deceased mother. The relations of accused with his deceased mother were cordial. He admitted that Raj Kumari wife of Darshan Kumar disclosed that the accused had gone to forest with his mother to bring fodder and fuel wood. He admitted that said Raj Kumari has not been cited as witness in the present case. He admitted that after the occurrence, father of the accused and Mohinder Singh were the first who reached the spot. He admitted that Mohinder Singh has not been cited as a witness. He denied that the deceased was murdered by someone else and accused has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He admitted that he did not lift finger prints from the handle of Darat. He denied that false case has been made against the accused. 33. PW10 Seva Devi deposed that on 2.7.2013 she went to graze cattle and drink water the cattle in a pond on the check dam. At about, 12.30 P.M., she saw accused coming on the check dam. He was perplexed and was carrying a Darat in his hands. The accused washed the Darat in the pond and he also washed clothes and his hands in the pond and thereafter he went from there. She did not talk to him as she thought that he had consumed some drug. PW10 stated that the accused is a drug addict. In the evening, she came to know that Shrestha Devi had been murdered in the jungle when accused in the morning went with Shrestha Devi in the Jungle. She did not talk to him as she thought that he had consumed some drug. PW10 stated that the accused is a drug addict. In the evening, she came to know that Shrestha Devi had been murdered in the jungle when accused in the morning went with Shrestha Devi in the Jungle. PW10 stated that when she heard about the murder of Shrestha Devi, she believed that accused has murdered his mother because he was washing the 'Darat' and the clothes on the pond in the afternoon and he was perplexed. She stated that accused was drug addict and used to fight with his parents. On the next day she demarcated the place to the police where the accused washed the Darat, clothes and hands. 34. In her cross-examination, she stated that her eyesight is weak. On the said date, she was not wearing spectacle. She was standing at a distance of about 20 meters where the accused washed Darat, clothes and hands. She did not see the accused going towards the jungle with his mother. She admitted that deceased Shrestha Devi was his real sister- in-law (Jethani). She admitted that in villages usually Darats are sharpened by rubbing the same on the stone. 35. Perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence, available on record, would go to reveal that there is no eye-witness in the instant case, thus, the case of the prosecution against the accused is based upon circumstantial evidence. 36. In deciding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, for the purpose conviction, the Court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which re-enforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together to conclusive in establishing the guilty of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more or these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. 37. The facts established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this, does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful, it might be. But this, does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful, it might be. There must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. 38. It is not in dispute that the present case is also based upon circumstantial evidence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions , in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete there is no escape from the conclusion with all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else and circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and in capable of explanation of any other hypothesis then that of the guilty of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be consistent with innocence. 39. In Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam , (2017) 14 SCC 359 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “14. Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 40. In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs State of Uttar Pradesh , 2022 SCC Online SC 1396, the legal position has further been reiterated as under:- PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO APPRECIATION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 45. In ‘A Treatise on Judicial Evidence’, Jeremy Bentham, an English Philosopher included a whole chapter upon what lies next when the direct evidence does not lead to any special inference. It is called Circumstantial Evidence. According to him, in every case, of circumstantial evidence, there are always at least two facts to be considered: a) The Factum probandum, or say, the principal fact (the fact the existence of which is supposed or proposed to be proved; & b) The Factum probans or the evidentiary fact (the fact from the existence of which that of the factum probandumis inferred). 46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 50. Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1643/2012, titled as Vaibhav vs. The State of Maharashtra , decided on 4.6.2025 has held as under:- “27. No doubt, the subsequent acts of cleaning up the crime scene and making false enquiries amount to disappearance of evidence and raise grave suspicion against the appellant. However, mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial. The suspicion ought to have been substantiated by undeniable, reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible circumstantial evidence, which does not leave the probability of any other theory. In the present case, the theory put across by the appellant is fairly probable and is supported by medical evidence including the examination of the bullet injury and trajectory. Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by medical evidence and is not consistent with the bullet injury and trajectory, as discussed above. In the present case, the theory put across by the appellant is fairly probable and is supported by medical evidence including the examination of the bullet injury and trajectory. Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by medical evidence and is not consistent with the bullet injury and trajectory, as discussed above. We have come far since our acknowledgement that in a case purely based on circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete. Such chain must be consistent with the conclusion of guilt only and must not support a contrary finding. The rigid principles underlying an examination based on circumstantial evidence are based on the premise that the very act of arriving at a finding of guilt on the basis of inferences must be performed with great caution and margin of error must be kept at a minimum. Having said so, we may also observe that naturally, there could be some inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances in the natural course of things and mere presence of inconsistencies does not automatically demolish the case of the prosecution. However, the prosecution must be able to explain the inconsistencies to the satisfaction of the Court. For, the ultimate test is the judicial satisfaction of the Court. In the present case, the counter probabilities and inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained.” 42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36-37 of 2019, titled as Putai vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh , decided on 26.8.2025 has held as under:- “78. We are conscious that the case involves a gruesome act of rape and brutal murder of a tender girl child aged 12 years. However, it is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The incriminating circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of anyone else”. 43. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence has remained impassive. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Appearance of serious doubt in the prosecution case only helps the case of accused. More serious the offence, more arduous is the duty cast upon prosecution to discharge its burden strictly in accordance with law. 43. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence has remained impassive. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Appearance of serious doubt in the prosecution case only helps the case of accused. More serious the offence, more arduous is the duty cast upon prosecution to discharge its burden strictly in accordance with law. In absence of direct evidence, circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have to satisfy the same standard of proof i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts. Once this barrier is successfully crossed, it is to be shown that all the circumstances form a complete chain of facts suggesting only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. 44. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, learned Additional Advocate General has highlighted the following substantial evidence against the accused: 1. On 2.7.2013 at about 11.30 A.M., the accused was last seen with his mother deceased Shrestha Devi when they proceeded towards jungle to bring fuel wood. 2. There were strained relations between the accused and deceased Shrestha Devi. 3. On the same day at about 12.30 pm accused was noticed by PW10 Seva Devi washing 'Darat', clothes and hands at Khuhi Nallah Check Dam. 4. Recovery of weapon of offence (Darat) alleged to have been used by the accused while murdering the deceased. 5. Clothes of the accused were found stained with human blood. 6. Report of Scientific Officer RFSL, Dharamshala Ex. PA & Ex.PB/report of serologist Ex. PC and Ex.PD. 7. Motive. 45. The courts are governed by rule of law. No conviction can be recorded on assumption. Prosecution has to discharge its burden by proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and for such purpose, it has to prove the fact in issue on the basis of relevant and admissible evidence. Merely, because police get knowledge about the culprit either from illegal confession extracted from him or from any other source will not absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove the guilt of the accused in accordance with law. 46. Before adverting to circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, it would be noticed that nature of death of deceased, in the instant case, is homicidal as is evident from the final opinion given by PW5 Dr. 46. Before adverting to circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, it would be noticed that nature of death of deceased, in the instant case, is homicidal as is evident from the final opinion given by PW5 Dr. Ashutosh Joshi, who conducted the most-mortem of the deceased, to the effect that cause of death is due to chopped wound at the level of neck leading to hemorrhage, bleeding shock and death. 47. As regards circumstances No. 1 to 3, having been relied to link the accused with the alleged offence, testimonies of Pardeep Kumar, PW1 Baba Singh, Raj and PW10 Seva Devi assume importance as the case purforth by the prosecution is that it was Pardeep Kumar, younger brother of accused, who, saw the accused accompanying their mother ShresthaDevi to jungle to bring fuel wood. He disclosed this fact to his father PWI Baba Singh. One Raj also disclosed the complainant that ShresthaDevi had gone to jungle to bring bushes for broom. PW10 Seva Devi also saw the accused coming on the check dam and found him carrying darat in his hand and washing his hands, clothes and darat. 48. However, at this stage, it would be noticed that the material witnesses Pardeep Kumar and Raj have not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, now only testimonies of PW1 and PW10 are left on the record to be scanned by the Court to link the accused with the alleged offence. 49. PW1 Baba Singh, who is husband of the deceased, in his deposition has categorically deposed that on 2.7.2013 at about 10.30/11.00 am, he went to PWD office Latri (Khajjan) and came back to home at about 6.00 PM. He inquired from his son Pardeep Kumar about the whereabouts of the deceased and he told that his mother had gone to Jungle for collecting bushes. PW1 further stated that thereafter, he along with his brother Mohinder Singh rushed towards jungle to search the deceased. PW1 went upto some distance from his house and found dead body of his wife and her head was lying beheaded at a distance of about 12-15 feet. The water bottle, Darat and Chapples of his deceased wife were also lying there. Thereafter he informed the Ward Panch regarding the incident. In the mean time police and people of the village gathered on the spot. The water bottle, Darat and Chapples of his deceased wife were also lying there. Thereafter he informed the Ward Panch regarding the incident. In the mean time police and people of the village gathered on the spot. His deposition does not speak about the role of the accused. 50. PW10 Seva Devi is sister-in-law of the deceased. She deposed that on 2.7.2013 she went to graze and drink water the cattle in a pond on the check dam. At about, 12.30 P.M., he saw accused coming on the check dam. He was perplexed and was carrying a Darat in his hands. The accused washed the Darat in the pond and he also washed clothes and his hands in the pond and thereafter he went from there. She did not talk to him as she thought that he had consumed some drug. PW10 also stated that the accused is a drug addict. In the evening she came to know that Shrestha Devi had been murdered in the jungle when accused in the morning went with Shrestha Devi to the Jungle. PW10 stated that when she heard about the murder of Shrestha Devi, she believed that accused has murdered his mother because he was washing the 'Darat' and the clothes on the pond in the afternoon and he was perplexed. She stated that accused was drug addict and used to fight with his parents. 51. In her cross-examination, PW10 stated that her eyesight is weak and on the said date, she was not wearing spectacle. She was standing at a distance of about 20 meters where the accused washed Darat, clothes and hands. She did not see the accused going towards the jungle with his mother. She admitted that deceased Shrestha Devi was his real sister- in-law (Jethani). She admitted that in villages usually Darats are sharpened by rubbing the same on the stone. 52. PW1 has narrated in his statement what measures he took to trace his deceased wife, when he did not find her at home, but he did not disclose that his son Pardeep Kumar had told him that the accused accompanied his deceased mother towards jungle. Even, he specifically denied as is being projected by the prosecution that PW10 Seva Devi told him that accused was washing his clothes and 'Darat' at pond on 2.7.2013 at about 12.00/12.15 in the noon and the accused was perplexed. Even, he specifically denied as is being projected by the prosecution that PW10 Seva Devi told him that accused was washing his clothes and 'Darat' at pond on 2.7.2013 at about 12.00/12.15 in the noon and the accused was perplexed. He denied that he asked the accused regarding the offence but he could not reply satisfactorily. He also denied that the accused used to quarrel with his mother for want of money. He denied that the accused killed the deceased (his wife). PW1 after hearing portion A to A of his statement Mark-B, specifically stated the same to be incorrect as he did not state so before the police. 53. After being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, PW1 was also cross-examined by the defence counsel, wherein he admitted that Darat like Ex. P1 is commonly available in every house of village and local market. He admitted that he did not hand over the 'Darat' to the police. He admitted that the accused was having very good relations with his mother. He could not tell as to who had murdered his wife. 54. Now coming to statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C, Ex. PW1/A, wherein he stated that when he returned to his house at about 6.00 P.M. he inquired about his wife from his son Pardeep Kumar who at the first instance disclosed that he has no knowledge about the whereabouts of the deceased. As per statement of complainant, his son Pardeep Kumar had no knowledge as to where his mother Shrestha Devi had gone. 55. Raj, as noticed above, has neither been cited as witness nor associated during investigation who disclosed the fact as is being projected by the prosecution that Shrestha Devi had gone to jungle. 56. Now, another piece of evidence led by the prosecution is supplementary statement of Pardeep Kumar Ex. PW9/Q, which came to be recorded by the I.O. on 3.7.2013 and as per this statement, it was claimed that he disclosed to his father PW1 Baba Singh that accused accompanied his mother Shrestha Devi to jungle and thereafter at about 12.30 p.m. the accused returned alone. As per this statement Pardeep Kumar disclosed this fact to his father on 3.7.2013. This witness, as observed above, has also not been examined by prosecution on the grounds of having been won over by the accused. 57. As per this statement Pardeep Kumar disclosed this fact to his father on 3.7.2013. This witness, as observed above, has also not been examined by prosecution on the grounds of having been won over by the accused. 57. Scrutiny of the testimony of the the complainant shows that it is absolutely silent qua the fact that his son Pardeep Kumar disclosed to him that accused accompanied his wife Shrestha Devi to jungle. As per complainant, on inquiry his son Pardeep Kumar had only disclosed that Shrestha Devi had gone to jungle to collect bushes. 58. Testimonies of PW1, complainant and PW10 are general in nature and nothing incriminating can be extracted from the same to prove the guilt of the accused as is being projected by the prosecution. There is nothing on record to suggest that Pardeep Kumar disclosed to complainant that accused accompanied his mother Shrestha Devi to jungle. Even the supplementary statement of Pardeep Kumar Ex. PW9/Q appears to be an afterthought as at the first instance he did not disclose this important fact to his father on 2.7.2013 when he inquired whereabouts of Shrestha Devi. 59. The circumstance, as projected by the prosecution that accused had strained relations with his mother Shrestha Devi is also not borne out from the record as PW1 Baba Singh the complainant has ruled out this possibility by specifically denying that accused used to quarrel with his mother for want of money. Rather he admitted that accused had very good relations with his mother. Even I.O. PW9 Brij Mohan has deposed that the relations of the accused with his mother were cordial. 60. Testimony of PW10 Seva Devi also loses its significance as prosecution has failed to establish the story of last seen together. It has surfaced from the record that she did not see the accused going towards jungle with his mother. She also admitted that in villages usually 'Darats' are sharpened by rubbing the same on stone. This witness has also not seen the accused in the company of her mother when she went to jungle. 61. The complainant who lost his wife has also not supported the prosecution version qua the fact PW10 Seva Devi disclosed that accused was washing his 'Darat', clothes etc. on 2.7.2013 at about 12/12.15 in the noon and he was perplexed. This witness has also not seen the accused in the company of her mother when she went to jungle. 61. The complainant who lost his wife has also not supported the prosecution version qua the fact PW10 Seva Devi disclosed that accused was washing his 'Darat', clothes etc. on 2.7.2013 at about 12/12.15 in the noon and he was perplexed. Theory of last seen has not been established, as such, version of PW10 Seva Devi that he saw the accused washing his Darat, clothes etc. loses significance. 62. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to link that on 2.7.2013 at about 11.30 am accused was last seen with his mother Shrestha Devi when they proceeded towards jungle to bring fuel wood and the accused had strained relations with his mother Shrestha Devi as such, had a motive to murder her. 63. As regards circumstantial evidence alleged against the accused qua recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Darat Ex. P1. During investigation, as per the prosecution story, Darat Ex. Pl was got recovered on 3.7.2013 and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B in the presence of witnesses PW2 Mulakh Raj and Roshan Lal. However, in the instant case, recovery of 'Darat' has not been effected at the instance of accused and it is PW1 Baba Singh, the complainant, according to the prosecution, who produced 'Darat' Ex. Pl during investigation. But then, in his cross-examination, PW1 admitted the suggestion that he did not produce said 'Darat' to the police. There is nothing on record to suggest why recovery of 'Darat' was not effected from the accused. Even 'Darat', alleged weapon of offence, was also not got identified from PW10 Seva Devi, who, as per prosecution story, first of all, is alleged to have seen the accused at Khuhi Nallah Check Dam with the said 'Darat'. Thus, production of 'Darat' Ext. P1 by complainant during investigation cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance against the accused when the recovery of weapon of offence is itself not proved on record. 64 . Now, coming to the circumstance alleged against the accused that the clothes of the accused were stained with human blood. To corroborate this fact, prosecution has relied upon the report of Scientific Officer RFSL, Dharamshala Ex. PB and Ex. PC and as per these reports human blood was detected in Ex.5a (Shirt) Deepak Kumar, Ex. 64 . Now, coming to the circumstance alleged against the accused that the clothes of the accused were stained with human blood. To corroborate this fact, prosecution has relied upon the report of Scientific Officer RFSL, Dharamshala Ex. PB and Ex. PC and as per these reports human blood was detected in Ex.5a (Shirt) Deepak Kumar, Ex. 5b (Pants) Deepak Kumar but was insufficient for blood grouping. According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on 3.7.2013 at 7.10 pm and thereafter his clothes were taken into possession. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the I.O. prepared any memo qua this fact. There is no reference in the application Ex. PW9/M addressed to SMO Civil Hospital Nurpur and in the MLC of accused that clothes of the accused were stained with blood. Even I.O. PW9 Inspector Brij Mohan has not corroborated this fact that the clothes of accused were stained with blood when he was arrested on 3.7.2013. Though, human blood was detected on the clothes of the accused but prosecution has miserably failed to link that said human blood was that of deceased Shrestha Devi, as such, reports of Serologist Ex. PB and Ex. PC are of no help to the case of prosecution. Thus, the recovery of the clothes of the accused the manner in which the prosecution has portrayed is of no help to the prosecution as it does not link the accused with the alleged offence. 65. To connect the accused with the alleged offence, the learned Additional Advocate General has urged that accused had motive to murder his mother Shrestha Devi as his relations with her were not cordial as he used to quarrel with her for want of money. However, as discussed above, PW1 father of the accused and PW9 I.O., who conducted the investigation have categorically stated that accused had good relations with his mother. Motive, as portrayed by the learned Additional Advocate General seems to be improbable as the prosecution has failed to lead any convincing evidence in this regard. 66. As observed above, there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and there is no enmity established by the prosecution and no motive has been assigned to the respondent for assaulting or murdering the deceased. 67. 66. As observed above, there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and there is no enmity established by the prosecution and no motive has been assigned to the respondent for assaulting or murdering the deceased. 67. Failure to prove even a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances and once there is a snap, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 68. The prosecution has not been able to establish that it was the respondent who was last seen with the deceased. Even if it was so, this by itself does not necessarily lead to the inference that it was the respondent who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. 69. Lastly, as argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, non- explanation on the part of the accused is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, mere non-explanation, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the respondent. (Refer: Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan , (2014) 4 SCC 715 ) 70. In Nizam vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550 it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that "only if the prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts by definite evidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused, a reasonable inference would be drawn against the accused and then only onus can be shifted on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act”. 71 Before the prosecution is permitted to invoke Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it must first establish that there was any fact especially within the knowledge of respondent, which is not the fact situation obtaining in the instant case. 72. It well settled that graver the offence stricter shall be the proof and graver the offence, wider shall be latitude granted to the defence. Howsoever, strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof. The purpose of a criminal trial is not to convict any accused facing trial, but to do justice. 73. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to link chain of circumstantial evidence so as to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Howsoever, strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof. The purpose of a criminal trial is not to convict any accused facing trial, but to do justice. 73. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to link chain of circumstantial evidence so as to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The learned court below has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and after thrashing the entire evidence and material for the determination of the case, thus has rightly acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him and passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent. Resultantly, we have no hesitation to conclude that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 74. The instant appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 75. The bails bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are discharged. 76. Records be sent down.